This Artillery Fixation is getting a bit old now.

[Didz]

Anyone else getting a bit bored with the AI's artillery targetting obsession?

Its got so predictable now that I use artillery just as bait in a trap, and the AI swallows it every damned time. Its bad enough that you have to constantly slap your own artillery round the head every few minutes to get them to stop firing at the enemies guns and target something useful. But whoever programmed the battlefield AI knew nothing about the period depicted. You certainly didn't charge the enemies guns head-on, and definately not when they are fully protected by supporting infantry and cavalry.

Where is this amazing AI that we were promised?

[Dayve]

Where is this amazing AI that we were promised?

That's what i want to know.

[Phog_of_War]

As the game is constructed now counter-battery fire in the period is innacurate, wasteful of ammunition and, except for certian incidents, simply ahistorical. Effective CB really came about once field guns were rifled and the rounds themselves improved. Not to mention advances in gunnery schooling and tactics. Obviously, someone like Forward Observer, who knows way more about artillery than I (I'm an Air Force guy) could comfirm my statements but I believe they are accurate.

As far as a solution goes, perhaps the AI artillery could be made to ignore enemy guns unless well in range. And the AI infantry and cav need to stop charging defended guns. Just the other day I saw the AI sacrificing a unit of elite infantry to keep my cannon battery busy while they charged in cav from behind. A good move except for using an elite unit as cannon fodder and the fact that the AI didnt try to screen its movements at all. And because of this tactical blunder the AI attack on my guns was repulsed with extreme prejudice.

I'm not going to complain about the battle AI because that is like But it seems like the AI should at least screen/support an attack or at least not use expensive, elite units to charge well defended artillery positions.

[Didz]

Well I think the issue is that we were told the AI in this game was an improvement, when in fact at best its no different, and in places much worse than pervious versions of the game.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I can understand counter battery fire till more threatening targets get within effective range, but AI target priority selection doesn't make tactical sense. Even the player's own artillery makes dumb choices when left to their own devices. My 12lber's seem to ignore the immediate threat right in front of them and target their canister shot at another unit that isn't about to over-run their position.

I will give the AI this though; they target your general quite well and you disregard that at your peril. I usually keep my general mid formation and what I think is well back. On quite a number of occassions during full stack battles my general's unit takes 50% casualties or more. I've been getting into the habit of trying to use cover, trees or the back side of a hill, to protect him better.

[Dead Guy]

What I find most annoying is when artillery target the ends of units coming at them with cannister shot. I can't figure out why. It's not that hard to point the cannon in the right direction is it? Especially when the target is 50 men wide. As it is now, if you click to attack a unit, cannister sometimes just shaves 1-3 men off of the edge of the target unit, whereas if you do it yourself (why do I have to do everything myself? ), target manually right in front of the unit in the center, you can kill more than 10 men with one shot and frequently get them wavering or broken if combined with a volley from the line. It's like the gatling laser shooting at an angle in extra stupid generic postapocalyptic FPS 3.

[Forward Observer]

As the game is constructed now counter-battery fire in the period is innacurate, wasteful of ammunition and, except for certian incidents, simply ahistorical. Effective CB really came about once field guns were rifled and the rounds themselves improved. Not to mention advances in gunnery schooling and tactics. Obviously, someone like Forward Observer, who knows way more about artillery than I (I'm an Air Force guy) could comfirm my statements but I believe they are accurate.

As far as a solution goes, perhaps the AI artillery could be made to ignore enemy guns unless well in range. And the AI infantry and cav need to stop charging defended guns. Just the other day I saw the AI sacrificing a unit of elite infantry to keep my cannon battery busy while they charged in cav from behind. A good move except for using an elite unit as cannon fodder and the fact that the AI didnt try to screen its movements at all. And because of this tactical blunder the AI attack on my guns was repulsed with extreme prejudice.

I'm not going to complain about the battle AI because that is like But it seems like the AI should at least screen/support an attack or at least not use expensive, elite units to charge well defended artillery positions.

From what I've read, you are correct in that counter battery fire, as a studied and purposely used tactic, was not common in the 18th century. Obviously artillery duels happened if the situation arose, but given the technological level of the guns of the period, artillery was best used for either breaking up massed infantry formations or siege work. In other words, artillery needed large targets at the time.

True counter battery fire by modern definitions would most likely be accomplished by also using the modern definition of true indirect fire. By true indirect fire, I mean shooting at an unseen target miles away, using information processed by a command control center, which is in turn is provided by some method of remote target observation.

By these definitions, counter battery fire only started to be seen around the time of the American civil war, and was only fully implemented with the technology needed to fully support it was available around start of the 20th century.

As for protecting direct fire units from frontal assault, lately I've been using the light infantry when available to plant stakes in front of my light horse 6 pounders. I have the light infantry unit lined up in front the artillery unit with the arty "fire at will" button turned off prior to ending unit placement. After starting the battle, I have the infantry plant their stakes, then move them out of the way, and put the artillery back on fire at will. While it won't stop infantry, it will help stop a frontal cavalry charge which is one less thing to worry about.

Even with all the functionality problems of the artillery---as the game stands now, I rarely field a full army stack without at least four howitzer units, one mortar unit, and two light horse 6 pdrs. That only leaves 13 slots for my general plus infantry and cavalry. Still, with this mix I routinely get 10 and 12 to one kill ratios even when out numbered 1.5 to one. I was saving screen captures of such battle results, but when I hit 20 or so, I stopped.

I read in the developer's daily update thread that they are going to alter the ranges and accuracy of the the indirect fire weapons. I think this is mostly due to complaints from on-line players and I hate to hear it. While they need to correct the lack of functionality, I don't think they need to nerf the big guns just because on-line players who favor infantry and cavalry over artillery, can't figure out how to use it, or contend with it.


Cheers

[Fisherking]

That is all too true! Online play should not result in weakening the single player mode.

if there is a problem, then give it separate files to work with.

It is hard to say that artillery is too deadly and needs to be nerfed in single player. Most of the time it is hard to justify dragging it along.

[Phog_of_War]

Thanks FO. Its always nice to have the "useless" information I learned in College, be confirmed by someone with real world experience.

[NimitsTexan]

I read in the developer's daily update thread that they are going to alter the ranges and accuracy of the the indirect fire weapons.

The problem was that CA made indirect fire weapons, particularly mortars, longer ranged than cannon, when in reality, the opposite was true. Reducing the range of mortars and the like will improve game, both for online competition and for off-line historical accuracy.

[nafod]

Agree with NimitsTexan

Mortars/howitzers of the era did not outrange direct fire cannons. There isn't anything else to say about the sad state of artillery in this game....

[Didz]

The problem was that CA made indirect fire weapons, particularly mortars, longer ranged than cannon, when in reality, the opposite was true. Reducing the range of mortars and the like will improve game, both for online competition and for off-line historical accuracy.

Ah! well that is true, and I must admit I was a little surprised at the range available to 'mortars', which were essentially short range seige weapons. So, maybe its not going to be a problem, although cannon in general probably ought to have a longer range in truth. They were effective up to 800 yards, the only real problem was being able to see something worth firing at.